Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Biden regime admits Ukraine will lose more territory within next two months

By Ahmed Adel | February 29, 2024

Ukraine will lose additional territory in the coming months due to a lack of US military support, White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby lamented on February 27. This comes as Washington confirmed that US troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine even if discussions were held with France over this possibility.

“If they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines,” Kirby told reporters, adding that this could occur in not only eastern Ukraine but also potentially in the south of the country.

In the same press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly emphasised that the situation is “dire” for Ukraine and recalled how the CIA Director “laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were” and “what was going on in the battle — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important.”

On the same day, US President Joe Biden also said that the need to provide additional support to Ukraine is urgent. However, the Republicans have blocked any further funding for Ukraine unless Biden relents on his open border policy, something that he is seemingly unwilling to do.

The lack of weapons and admission that Russia is about to liberate more territory compounds Kiev’s frustrations, especially after Washington confirmed that American troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine. According to a military source interviewed by the AFP news agency, the US spent weeks discussing plans to send troops with France but ultimately deemed the risk to be too high.

On February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, a surprising statement since the deployment of fighters was never publicly discussed or expected. Since Macron’s alarming statement, numerous European countries have disassociated from the idea, including Germany, Poland, Spain, Greece, and the Czech Republic.

Now it was the White House’s turn to deny that US troops would be deployed in Ukraine. In a statement to the press, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated that “the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine.”

According to a military source cited by AFP, NATO countries have been discussing for weeks the possibility of sending their own soldiers to support the Ukrainians, and the US was one of those who supported the idea.

Responding to Macron’s statement, the Kremlin said, “The very fact of discussing the possibility of sending certain contingents to Ukraine from NATO countries is a very important new element.” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that if troops are sent, “we would need to talk not about the probability, but about the inevitability (of a direct conflict).”

Macron seemingly wants to start a Russia-NATO war, a war that would inevitably lead to nuclear strikes and with no winner, and for this reason, it is obvious why the French president became immediately isolated, so much so that even Washington cowered and distanced itself from the idea.

French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné attempted to soften the humiliating blow on February 28 by claiming that Macron had in mind sending troops for specific tasks such as helping with mine clearance, production of weapons on site, and cyber-defence.

“[This] could require a [military] presence on Ukrainian territory without crossing the threshold of fighting,” Sejourne told French lawmakers. “It’s not sending troops to wage war against Russia.”

This is an obvious cover story as Macron was almost immediately isolated, and as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova highlighted, France’s allies neither understood nor supported the French president’s idea.

“This same statement shocked their NATO allies. A few hours later, a series of statements were made by the leadership of NATO countries, foreign ministers, and defence ministers, who said that they […] disassociate themselves from Macron’s statement. That they themselves do not plan any of this, they do not plan to send anyone and understand that this will already be a different story,” she said.

With the West failing to meet weapon supply promises made to Kiev, further US financing blocked in Congress, and, more importantly, the recent liberation of the fortress town of Avdeyevka, Ukraine will inevitably lose territory at a rapid rate. Given that the White House is openly admitting to this reality, one would expect the Kiev regime to search for an end to the conflict, yet it still chooses to pin its hopes on weapons that are not arriving on time or, more delusionally, that the West will finally directly intervene in the conflict.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Scholz slammed for revealing UK troop presence in Ukraine

RT | February 29, 2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has come under fire from the UK after he suggested that there were British troops operating in the Ukraine conflict. Explaining why Berlin would not supply Kiev with long-range Taurus missiles, Scholz said it would require German military personnel on the ground providing assistance.

He went on to say that Taurus “is a very long-range weapon, and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance can’t be done in Germany.”

Commenting on Scholz’s remark, Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the British Commons defense committee, said it was “a flagrant abuse of intelligence deliberately designed to distract from Germany’s reluctance to arm Ukraine with its own long-range missile system,” as quoted by The Telegraph. The British lawmaker was also sure that the statement would be “used by Russia to rachet up the escalator ladder.”

“German soldiers can at no point and in no place be linked with the targets that this system reaches,” Scholz insisted, even if operating from German soil, according to the DPA news agency.

The German chancellor stated that it would be “not very responsible” for his country to risk becoming a “party to the war.”

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Financial Times quoted an anonymous senior European defense official as saying that “everyone knows there are Western special forces in Ukraine – they’ve just not acknowledged it officially.”

Addressing the press following a summit of Kiev’s backers in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron noted that “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything,” referring to a potential ground deployment of Western militaries.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg however hastened to clarify that there were “no plans for NATO combat troops on the ground in Ukraine.” This was followed by similar assurances by the leaders of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that such a development would mean that “we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability” of an all-out military confrontation between NATO and Russia.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine ‘Fiasco’ Likely Driving West to Seek Victory Against Houthis

Sputnik – 28.02.2024

Efforts of the US-led coalition to thwart Houthi attacks on Israeli-linked shipping in the Gulf of Aden have been recently backed by Germany which deployed one of its warships, frigate Hessen, to aid Washington’s effort.

The frigate’s deployment came as part of an “EU-wide operation that includes other countries as well,” said Nikolas Kosmatopoulos, assistant professor of public policy and international affairs at the American University of Beirut.

“I know that my country, Greece, also sent off frigates only a few days ago. So this is a major escalation. This is a very dangerous major escalation,” he told Sputnik. “[It is] A decision that’s made by the EU to interfere in the conflict that has been raging in the Sea of Aden and the coast of Yemen.”

According to Kosmatopoulos, this a “very worrisome development” as the European Union’s decision to join the US conflict with the Houthis leads to “extreme militarization of the waters” in the region, not to mention the EU becoming a “party to the regional war waging in Israel –Palestine.”

He also suggested that it is hard to tell whether the Hessen’s deployment came as a result of US pressure on Germany or as part of an EU effort to unblock the waterway in question.

On one hand, Kosmatopoulos noted, the US does seek to have other NATO members “share the burdens of the collective security under the NATO alliance,” including all of the associated costs and risks.

On the other hand, “the current European governance and current European leadership seems to be willingly going in this direction.”

“We saw it also in the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict that it has been more or less unified front, consolidated front that makes it difficult to decide whether it’s just the US pressure or is also a collective decision of the West to close ranks and show strength in multiple fronts,” Kosmatopoulos said.

Regarding the reason why the US seeks to drag more of its NATO allies into the confrontation with the Houthis, the scholar postulated that Washington “wants to share the responsibility, wants to make others partake in this, wants them to dirty their hands and to show what they got,” just like they did by compelling European nations to back Kiev.

The ensuing escalation in the Middle East, he reasoned, “allows the US and its allies to ask for more and more intensive engagement that might also mean active military action against the Ansar Allah and Houthis in Yemen” as the West seeks to “reestablish its hegemony.”

“Perhaps the Ukraine fiasco made it necessary to have victory somewhere else,” Kosmatopoulos. “I hope that this is not understood as a zero-sum game in the Western elites. But it might look like that from the outset. So in that case, we’re in for a regional flare-up, if not – bigger than that. And this is an extremely worrisome development.”

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s Brain-Dead Now, Macron?

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 28, 2024

French President Emmanuel Macron wants to send NATO ground troops into Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Only a delusional fool could make such a crass proposal which goes to show that Macron is brain-dead. NATO troops deployed to fight Russian forces would mean an all-out war, which most likely would spiral into a nuclear conflagration.

Ironically, the French leader made headlines a while back when he labeled the US-led NATO alliance as being “brain-dead”. He’s now competing for the same epithet.

When Macron made those harsh remarks about NATO in an interview with the Economist in November 2019, some observers thought that he was being intelligently critical of the transatlantic military organization and how it was no longer fit for purpose in the modern age.

But, no, Macron wasn’t offering constructive criticism of NATO or American leadership. He was simply being a conceited charlatan, trying to promote himself as the “strong leader” of Europe and peddling his hobby horse of building up a European army by appearing to bad mouth NATO.

This week, the former Rothschild banker was at it again, indulging in his grandiose fantasies of leading the rest of Europe.

Macron hosted 25 European heads of state or government at the Conference in Support of Ukraine. In the grandeur of the Elysee Palace, he warned that Russia “must not win the war in Ukraine” otherwise, he claimed, the whole of Europe would succumb to Russian aggression.

This is reckless and dangerous fantasy by the French president indulging in the most unhinged Russophobia. Moscow has categorically stated that it has no interest in anything beyond denazifying the NATO-sponsored regime in Kiev and protecting its national security.

To offset such a purported nightmarish outcome of Russian tanks rolling over Europe, Macron told European leaders that they should not rule out deploying NATO ground troops to assist the Kiev regime.

“Nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war,” the French president said in front of approving European leaders.

Among the conference attendees were German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Foreign Minister David Cameron. Germany and France earlier this month signed bilateral security pacts with Ukraine, which could be invoked for sending military forces officially to prosecute the U.S.-led proxy war against Russia.

NATO officers in the guise of private mercenaries are already heavily participating in the Ukraine conflict against Russia. Last month, more than 60 French servicemen were killed in a Russian missile strike near the Ukrainian city of Kharkov.

French media reported of the event in Paris this week: “The conference [in Paris] signaled Macron’s eagerness to present himself as a European champion of Ukraine’s cause, amid growing fears that American support could wane in the coming months.”

As well as calling for the deployment of NATO troops, Macron also pledged to send more long-range missiles to the Kiev regime for “deep strikes” in Russia.

French cruise missiles have already been used to strike the Russian territory of Crimea. Now the French leader wants a NeoNazi regime to have the capability to hit deep into Russia. How much longer can Moscow tolerate this outrageous provocation without reciprocal strikes?

No doubt the French president sees an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Macron is obsessed with notions of his self-importance and restoring France’s international image to some imaginary glorious past.

With the Americans squabbling in Congress about whether to send Ukraine another $60 billion in military aid and with the possible election of NATO-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House later this year, Macron sees an opening to show Western leadership by stepping up Europe’s support for Ukraine.

Macron’s egotism and delusions of grandeur are liable to start World War Three.

He is doing all this by telling blatant lies about the conflict in Ukraine.

Macron is indulging the Kiev puppet president Vladimir Zelensky in pretending that Ukraine has a chance of defeating Russia. Zelensky also addressed the conference in Paris via video link and made his tiresome appeal for more weapons. He asserted with barefaced lies that Ukrainian military deaths amounted to 31,000 troops since the conflict erupted two years ago. The most realistic figure is that over 400,000 and perhaps as many as 500,000 Ukrainian military have been killed by far superior Russian forces.

That’s the implicit admission made by Macron. Why would NATO troops be required in Ukraine if it was not for replacing Ukrainian ranks that have been devastated?

Macron justifies his lies by compounding the more outrageous lie that Russia is intent on invading other European nations once it defeats the Ukrainian army.

This bogeyman version of geopolitics ignores the reality that the United States and NATO fomented a proxy war against Russia using a NeoNazi regime.

Macron wants to start World War Three based on sheer lies and vanity. He’s not only brain-dead. He’s soul-dead too.

Emma

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

NATO’s Debate Over Whether To Conventionally Intervene In Ukraine Shows Its Desperation

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | FEBRUARY 27, 2024

French President Macron hosted over 20 fellow European leaders in Paris on Monday to discuss their next moves in Ukraine, including the possibility of a conventional NATO intervention, which he said they hadn’t ruled out for reasons of “strategic ambiguity” despite not reaching a consensus on this. His Polish counterpart Duda also confirmed that this subject was the most heated part of their discussions. The very fact that this scenario is being officially considered shows how desperate NATO has become.

Russia’s victory in Avdeevka, which was the natural result of it winning the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO, prompted policymakers to contemplate what they’ll do in the event that it achieves a breakthrough across the Line of Contact (LOC) and starts steamrolling through the rest of Ukraine. They hadn’t previously considered this to be a serious possibility until last summer’s failed counteroffensive exposed the weakness of their military-industrial complex and tactical-strategic planning.

It’s now a credible scenario that’s reviving speculation about a Polish-led intervention aimed at drawing a red line in the sand for halting any potential Russian breakthrough before it gets too far. This would preserve the G7’s “sphere of (economic) influence” in Ukraine while preventing that former Soviet Republic’s collapse and thus averting another Afghan-like foreign policy disaster for the West. The problem, however, is that Poland also doesn’t want to be put up to this only to be hung out to dry.

Although Poland has comprehensively subordinated itself to Germany after the return of Berlin-backed Prime Minister Tusk to power late last year and envisages carving out its own “sphere of influence” in Western Ukraine, this doesn’t mean that it wants to lead a Western intervention there. The risk of World War III breaking out with Russia by miscalculation is much too high and Poland might fear that NATO won’t activate Article 5 if it clashes with Russia inside Ukraine in order to prevent that from happening.

These concerns could explain why there wasn’t any consensus during Monday’s meeting on this issue since other members wisely won’t want to take the chance of catalyzing an apocalyptic scenario, ergo the reason why the West might be plotting a false flag in Poland to blame on Russia and Belarus. President Lukashenko warned about that in late February, and if it comes to pass, then it could serve as the trigger for pushing Poland into leading a Western intervention in Ukraine without full NATO backing.

Warsaw could be misled to believe without any written guarantees that it has the bloc’s support and Article 5 would be activated if its forces clash with Russia’s there, but only to be hung out to dry if that happens so as to stave off World War III by miscalculation for the greater good. Nevertheless, it would still serve the purpose of drawing a red line in the sand that could halt Russia’s advance since NATO might escalate via brinksmanship afterwards by promising to activate Article 5 if the clashes continue.

Poland would also be left to pick up the tab in that event by having to pay the financial and physical costs of this de facto NATO intervention, thus representing an amoral form of “burden-sharing” that would fall solely on its taxpayers instead of the rest of the bloc’s. The farmers’ protests that are rocking that country right now could lead to a full-blown rebellion if that happens since others could join in, however, which the ruling liberal-globalists would prefer not to unfold since they fear that they’d risk losing power.

That’s why they’re reluctant to lead a Western intervention in Ukraine since there’s a high chance that it’ll backfire on them in particular and Poland’s national interests in general despite being to the benefit of Western hegemony as a whole. Whatever ends up happening, the takeaway from Monday’s meeting in Paris and the details that were revealed about their discussions is that NATO is planning for a possible Russian breakthrough across the LOC later this year but isn’t yet sure how to react if that happens.

Poland could either be pushed to preempt that voluntarily or after being manipulated by the false flag that President Lukashenko warned last week is being plotted, with the second option also potentially being employed right after any breakthrough. If this occurs before NATO’s “Steadfast Defender 2024” drills wrap up in June, then those of the bloc’s forces that are presently training in Poland for its largest continental exercises since the Old Cold War could play a pivotal support role or possibly join in as well.

Should a breakthrough occur after those war games end as part of the Russian offensive that Zelensky claimed is being planned for as early as May, however, then Poland probably couldn’t count on as much NATO support and would likely be pressured to go it alone (at least at first) with only vague promises. Another possibility is that the exercises are extended, whether in whole or in part, including through the semi-permanent stationing of some other NATO forces like Germany’s there until the offensive ends.

That might give Poland enough reassurance to take a leap of faith in plunging head-first into Ukraine with the expectation that the rest of NATO will follow even if they purposely lag behind in order to avoid World War III with Russia by miscalculation as was previously explained. It remains to be seen what’ll happen, but as Macron himself said, “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war” and this therefore means that NATO will certainly intervene to some extent if Russia breaks through the LOC.

The bloc can’t afford another Afghan-like disaster, let alone on European soil in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, which is why it won’t sit idly on the sidelines as Ukraine collapses if there’s a credible chance of that happening and Russia steamrolling through the ruins. The only reason why they’re now planning for this is because Russia’s victory in the “race of logistics”/“war of logistics” makes it conceivable sometime later this year, though it of course can’t be taken for granted either.

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

US Army calls Russia ‘the enemy’

RT | February 27, 2024

The US Army has branded Moscow the “enemy” while promoting a newly-published manual on the Russian military on social media.

The Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate’s (CADD) new 280-page manual gives a detailed overview of Russian military strategy and tactics, and tries to predict how the country would conduct itself in future conflicts. The CADD promoted the manual in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, asking, “Do you know your enemy?”

The primary focus is on Moscow’s ground forces, which would be pitted against the US Army in a hypothetical direct war.

The document, known as ATP 7-100.1 and released last week, is part of a series that the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has been developing for years. Previous publications provided similar studies of the militaries of other potential near-peer and peer opponents: North Korea, China, and Iran. The materials are not classified and intended for professional US and allied military officers.

With Russia currently involved in the Ukraine conflict, US military researchers stressed that they are still examining data gathered there and would revise their instructions accordingly. They said it was “too early to assess the structure and equipping of any Russian unit for the next 5 to 10 years” with hostilities still ongoing.

Discussing Russia’s relations with the US and its NATO allies, the manual says they are defined “by a perpetual state of competition and self interest.” The country seeks recognition as a world power and it is “highly likely” that future Russian leaders will pursue policies similar to that of the current government “for the foreseeable future,” it said; Russia will “challenge the relative position of US influence in the global order while avoiding direct confrontation with the US military.”

The Russian leadership views NATO as an instrument of American geopolitical hegemony and has called its expansion in Europe a threat to national security. The Ukraine conflict, according to Moscow, is part of a wider US-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainian troops are sacrificed in the name of containment.

”The core of the problem is not in Ukraine but in those who are trying to destroy Russia with Ukrainian hands,” President Vladimir Putin said last month while visiting a military hospital. “Even though they have been pursuing this goal of tackling Russia for ages, we will sooner tackle them.”

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin reacts to Macron’s remarks on NATO troops in Ukraine

RT | February 27, 2024

A direct conflict between Russia and NATO will likely become inevitable if member states of the US-led military bloc send troops to Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, after French President Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility.

Macron, whose government hosted a high-profile meeting of Ukraine backers on Monday, said EU members “will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning” – including deploying forces on the ground to support Kiev. Several governments have since ruled out sending troops to the front line.

Opponents of the proposal “have a sober assessment of the potential risks” of having NATO forces in Ukraine, Peskov told the media on Tuesday. That would be “absolutely against the interests of those nations” and their people, he warned.

Asked about the probability of a direct conflict with NATO if Western troops are sent to Ukraine, the Kremlin spokesman said, “in this case, we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has spoken out against the idea. Participants of the meeting in Paris came to an agreement against it, he told a news conference on Tuesday.

At a joint press conference in Prague on Tuesday, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala and his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, ruled out sending their citizens to fight in Ukraine. Senior officials in Hungary and Slovakia issued similar statements.

Macron said Western leaders could end up changing their minds in the future, similarly to how they did with military assistance – which in some cases initially involved items such as helmets to eventually donating lethal weaponry including tanks and fighter jets.

While there was no consensus over the proposal, the participants agreed to create a coalition to supply medium and long-range missiles to Kiev, the French president said.

Moscow considers the Ukraine conflict to be a US-orchestrated proxy war against Russia, and has repeatedly warned that by supplying increasingly sophisticated weapons to Kiev, NATO members are drawing closer to a direct confrontation.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Countries Did Not Make Decision to Send Their Military to Ukraine – Polish President

Sputnik – 26.02.2024

WARSAW – NATO countries disagree on sending their military to Ukraine and have not made a decision to do so, Polish President Andrzej Duda said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said that several EU and NATO countries are considering the possibility of sending their military to Ukraine on the basis of bilateral agreements.

“If we are talking about providing specific assistance, then individual countries decide what kind of assistance they specifically provide to Ukraine. There was a heated discussion about sending soldiers to Ukraine, and there was no absolute mutual understanding on this issue. There are different opinions. But I want to emphasize that there are absolutely no such decisions,” Duda told reporters after the end of a conference on supporting Ukraine, held in Paris.

French President Emmanuel Macron added that “nothing can be ruled out,” commenting on the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Some EU, NATO States Ponder Possibility of Sending Military to Ukraine – Slovakia’s Fico

Sputnik – 26.02.2024

BRATISLAVA – Some EU and NATO countries are mulling over the possibility of sending their military to Ukraine on the basis of bilateral agreements, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Monday.

Later in the day, Paris will host a meeting where members of the EU and NATO will discuss the situation in Ukraine.

“For me, today’s meeting [in Paris] is confirmation that the West’s strategy in Ukraine has failed, but I want to be constructively prepared for it … It follows from these arguments that a group of NATO and EU countries are considering [the option] to send their military to Ukraine on the basis of bilateral agreements,” Fico told reporters after a meeting of the government and the security council.

Possible deployment of the EU and NATO military to Ukraine will not allow them to achieve concessions from Russia, but will only lead to an escalation of the conflict, the prime minister said.

Slovakia is not planning to send its soldiers to Ukraine, Fico added.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Euromaidan Was Part of West’s Proxy War Against Russia – CIA Veteran

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 21.02.2024

Exactly ten years ago, former President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the Euromaidan opposition to resolve the political crisis in Ukraine. The very next day, the opposition tore up the agreement and seized power by force.

Months of Euromaidan riots ended with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych agreeing to reform the constitution, form a “government of national unity,” and hold early elections in December 2014. The then-Ukrainian president also agreed to pardon rioters and launch investigations into violent acts by law enforcement officials.

Although the agreement guaranteed by the EU powers appeared to be solid, it barely lasted 24 hours: on February 22, 2014, the buildings of the presidential administration, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers were seized by violent protesters. The Maidan leaders appointed Oleksandr Turchynov as head of the Verkhovna Rada in violation of the country’s constitution, effectively ousting Yanukovych.

Speaking to US journalist Tucker Carlson on February 9, 2024, President Putin insisted that the coup was “unnecessary” because Yanukovych had agreed to meet the demands of the Maidan leaders.

Yanukovych went on the air from Kharkiv on February 22, 2014, and insisted that he would not resign: “I am a legally elected president. What is happening is fragrant vandalism and banditry and a coup d’etat,” he said.

Nonetheless, EU leaders openly signaled that they would work with the “new government” of Ukraine, thus destroying the agreements they had previously supported.

Real Puppeteers Were American Policy-Makers

“Officially the opposition was backed primarily by Europeans,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview for a documentary “Crimea: Way Back Home” in March 2015. “But we knew perfectly well that the real puppeteers pulling the strings were our American partners and friends.”

In early February 2014, a conversation between individuals believed to be then-US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the future composition of the Ukrainian government was leaked online. They talked about bringing opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk to power, while keeping Tyahnybok and Klitchko “outside”. In a passage that caused embarrassment to Washington, Nuland was heard to dismiss European partners with the phrase “F**k the EU.”

The scenario described in the leaked conversation came to fruition the same month: on February 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk was appointed as the Ukrainian prime minister. Klitschko was sworn in as mayor of Kiev on June 5, 2014. Tyahnybok stayed out of the de facto Ukrainian government but nonetheless visited the White House and met with then Vice President Joe Biden.

Russia Was the Target

In the wake of the coup, the Ukrainian junta resorted to brutal persecution of their political opponents, promoting an openly Russophobic agenda, and launched nothing short of a war on Donbass civilians who did not accept the illegitimate ouster of Yanukovych.

However, the real target of the US-backed regime change in Kiev was Russia, according to Larry Johnson, a retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official.

“What I think really, what it boils down to is that the West had simply decided that they wanted to take Russia,” Johnson told Sputnik. “At the core of it, they were looking for a long term strategy to isolate Russia. And the key to this was to get Ukraine into the western camp, to bring Ukraine into NATO, to bring Ukraine into the EU, and therefore to completely isolate, at least they thought they could isolate Russia. Because I think at least there was some recognition in some of the government circles that Russia has enormous wealth, natural resources. And it’s better for us to have it than for Russia to have it. I think it was the attitude.”

How Euromaidan Triggered Ukraine’s Nine-Year War on Donbass

The CIA veteran drew attention to the fact that the Euromaidan coup d’etat “ignited a civil war in Ukraine” and “ended up elevating Ukraine into a frontline priority” for the West.

“So prior to 2014, you didn’t get a lot of NATO exercises, featuring Ukraine. After 2014 Ukraine, even though it was not a formal member of NATO, was regularly featured in these joint annual exercises and that meant that Ukraine then became a proxy for a Cold War,” Johnson said.

“It became a proxy for the West to fight against Russia. And I think that’s why they were slowly building up Ukraine. The annual training was one thing, but also there was the desire, you know, persistent request to send more weapons to Ukraine. Again with nobody sitting back and saying, why? What are we trying to do? They tried to create the myth that it’s Russia that’s trying to attack Ukraine,” the former CIA veteran continued.

For its part, Russia made efforts to stop the bloodshed in Donbass through the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements. The accords envisaged cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, and a constitutional reform in Ukraine to grant self-governance to breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

However, in 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande admitted that the Minsk Agreements were seen by the West as an opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian Army.

For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in an interview with Spiegel in February 2023 that he actually had not been intended to observe the Minsk accords and informed his European counterparts about that. So, the accords were thrown down the drain in the same manner the Ukrainian opposition and the West shredded agreements with Yanukovych on February 22, 2014.

Hostilities Could be Stopped Many Times, West Just Didn’t Want to Do It

There were plenty of opportunities to avoid armed conflicts in Ukraine, highlighted Johnson.

“I mean, all the United States had to do is to say look, we’re not going to expand NATO into Ukraine,” the CIA veteran said. “We will cease conducting annual military exercises with Ukraine. And let’s reopen talks about reigniting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, the INF. And let’s begin looking at ways that we can cooperate and work together. But no, it was you know, the threats about the Nord Stream pipeline, for example, that had evolved.”

Russia has always been open to negotiations, President Vladimir Putin told the press on February 20, during a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.

Moscow maintained dialogue with the governments of Poroshenko and Zelensky to implement the Minsk Agreements in order to respect the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speakers while at the same time preserving the nation’s territorial integrity.

It remains neglected by the Western mainstream press that before launching the special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine Moscow sought to conclude agreements with the US and NATO to ensure common European security. The draft agreements which envisaged NATO’s guarantees of eastward non-expansion and Ukraine’s neutral status were snubbed by Washington, Brussels and NATO leadership.

Just a month after the beginning of the special military operation, Russian and Ukrainian representatives inked preliminary peace agreements in Istanbul in March 2022. Davyd Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation during the March 2022 Istanbul talks with Russia, told Ukrainian broadcaster 1+1 in November 2023 that Moscow was ready to end the conflict if Ukraine committed to neutrality and refused to join NATO. However, it was then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who encouraged President Volodymyr Zelensky to pick the battle and fight to the bitter end, the Ukrainian politician said.

“When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘We won’t sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight’,” Arakhamia recalled.

However, ex-PM Johnson was not alone in derailing the deal. “This war will be won on the battlefield,” European Union top diplomat Josep Borrell tweeted in April 2022, pledging hundreds of millions of euros for Kiev.

The same month, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin claimed that Washington wanted to see “Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done” in launching the special military operation. The US has spent over $100 billion in support for Ukraine’s military effort since then.

“The Western governments don’t want anything good to happen to Russia. They’re not willing to do anything to improve the lives of the Russian people. In my view, it’s genuine evil. And I’m watching this horrific policy that’s implemented by my government and there’s going to be an accounting someday. This is wrong,” the CIA veteran said.

“You know, I could understand it if this had happened 40 years ago when the Soviet Union with the ideology of communism, of Marx and Lenin was dominant. And the attempt to, you know, destroy churches and exclude religion, if that was the case, so, okay, I can understand religious people wanting to rise up and throw that off, but that’s not the case. It’s just the opposite. What we’ve got going on in Ukraine is almost, it’s demonic. It’s satanic. They literally embrace anti-Christian views under the guise of being Christian,” Larry Johnson concluded.

February 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

An Opportune Death Hypocritically Mourned

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 21, 2024

If Western media are to be believed, after the countless failures of their poisonous preparations clumsy Russian chemists seem now to have finally gotten it right. Alexey Navalny is reported to be dead and the Kremlin Borgias can now say: Gotcha!

However, unfortunately for the orchestrators of the new media stunt that after February 16 plunged the Western political class and MSM into a hysterical frenzy, the carefully crafted delusion began to unravel as soon as it was launched.

First off, it turned out that the politicians and media began to react as if on cue literally just a quarter hour after the obscure website of the Russian penitentiary system posted the news of Navalny’s death.

Observe the highly indicative chronological sequence of events and draw your own conclusions about the plausibility of their indignation.

Аt approximately 2:19 p.m. on February 18, 2024, the website operated by the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area (surely not in the favourites section of most people’s computers) reported the death of convict Alexey Navalny in Prison Colony No. 3.

Literally, 15 minutes later, a flurry of cut and paste commentary and accusations from Western political hacks began to pour in:

– 2:35 pm, Tobias Billström (Sweden): ‘Terrible news about Navalny. If the information about his death in a Russian prison is confirmed, it will be another heinous crime by Putin’s regime.’

–  2:35 pm, Barth Eide (Norway): ‘I’m deeply saddened by the news of Navalny’s death. The Russian government bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.’

– 2:41 pm, Edgars Rinkevics (Lithuania): ‘Whatever your thoughts about Alexei Navalny as a politician, he was just brutally murdered by the Kremlin. That’s a fact and that is something one should know about the true nature of Russia’s current regime.’

– 2:50 pm, Jan Lipavsky (Czech Republic): ‘Russia still treats foreign policy issues the same way it treats its citizens. It has turned into a violent state that kills people who dream of a beautiful, better future, such as Nemtsov and now Navalny, who was imprisoned and tortured to death.’

– 2:51 pm, Stéphane Séjourné (France): ‘Navalny paid with his life to fight against a system of oppression. His death in a penal colony reminds us of the realities of Vladimir Putin’s regime.’

– 3:02 pm, Charles Michel (EU): ‘The EU holds the Russian regime solely responsible for this tragic death.’

– 3:10 pm Kiev regime kingpin Zelensky: ‘Clearly, he was killed by Putin, like thousands of others who were tortured to death.’ (And just as clearly Gonzalo Lira was murdered by you, one would be inclined to respond to Zelensky in his face.)

– 3:16 pm (media), 4:50 pm (social media), Jens Stoltenberg (NATO): ‘We need to establish all the facts, and Russia needs to answer all the questions.’ (How about waiting for the facts to be established first and then asking questions?)

– 3:20 pm, Mark Rutte (Netherlands): ‘Navalny’s death once again bears witness to the immense brutality of the Russian regime’;

– 3:30 pm, Maia Sandu (Moldova): ‘Navalny’s death in a Russian prison is a reminder of the regime’s egregious suppression of dissent.’

– 3:35 pm, Annalena Baerbock (Germany): ‘Like no one else, Alexei Navalny was a symbol for a free and democratic Russia. That is precisely the reason he had to die.’

– 3:43 pm, Ursula von der Leyen (EU): ‘A grim reminder of what Putin and his regime are all about.’

– 3:49 pm, Ulf Kristersson (Sweden): ‘The Russian authorities, and President Putin personally, are responsible for Alexei Navalny no longer being alive.’

– 3:14 pm, Olaf Scholz (Germany): ‘He has now paid for this courage with his life. This terrible news demonstrates once again how Russia has changed and what kind of regime is in power in Moscow.’

– 3:25 pm, Antony Blinken (USA): ‘Beyond that, his death in a Russian prison and the fixation and fear of one man only underscores the weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built. Russia bears responsibility for this.’

– 5:28 pm, Emmanuel Macron (France): ‘In today’s Russia, free spirits are put in the Gulag and sentenced to death.’

Are we expected to believe that these ministers and officials have nothing better to do than to unceasingly monitor the website of the Russian Penitentiary service, in the hope of finding bits of information to which they might publicly react?

Note should be taken that within fifteen minutes to two hours following the 2:19 p.m. announcement of Navalny’s death no autopsy had or could have been performed. There was no forensic evidence whatsoever on which any conclusions about the causes and circumstances of Navalny’s demise could have been based. The only factual data that could have been known to these hacks at the time when they made their comments was that Navalny was exercising in the prison courtyard when he suddenly collapsed. A blood clot was suspected according to prison medical staff. What might that indicate?

It suggests, as Paul Craig Roberts has cogently argued, that outwardly at least Navalny’s observable manner of death was identical to that of numerous victims of the mRNA “vaccine.” Thousands of vaccinated young athletes and even airline pilots are dying in exactly the same way.

Where could Navalny possibly have received the fatal “vaccine,” which as former British Prime Minister Teresa May was fond of saying, “highly likely” was a shot manufactured by Pfizer, statistically the deadliest of them all? Not just by Teresa’s but in Navalny’s case more importantly by any reasonable person’s evidentiary standards, the answer is very simple. After his botched “Novichok poisoning” in Russia in 2020, Navalny was flown to Berlin where he received treatment at the top of the line Charité hospital. That was at the height of the Covid commotion. The hospital communique on his condition may have been redacted by Western intelligence agencies, but it is inconceivable that patient Navalny would have been hospitalised there without first being injected with the vaccine. In Germany, rigorous hospital protocol made that obligatory. We have no direct evidence that while in Germany Navalny did receive the jab, but under the circumstances that appears to be the logical and natural conclusion. The leading authority in such matters, Teresa May, would be simply obliged to agree that this would be a scenario that was “highly likely.” Unless she were prepared to contradict herself, of course.

So there you have it, as Andrey Martyanov would put it.

None of the West’s sock puppet politicians took that into consideration before issuing hackneyed carbon copy statements all of which appear to have been redacted by the same propaganda spin bureau.

Navalny’s death, whatever may have been its direct cause, could not have been better timed from the standpoint of his Western masters. For them, it came as a godsend, serving as a double distraction. Firstly, to turn attention away from the collapse of the Ukrainian front, not just in Avdeevka but along the entire line of contact. Secondly, to reframe perception and neutralise the impact of the truth bombs which exploded in the course of Tucker Carson’s interview.

It is – to reverse Teresa’s now famous dictum – highly unlikely that the reach of Western agencies extends to the remote prison camp in Magadan. The outcomes that from the standpoint of Navalny’s psychopathic controllers would be “good,” amongst which Navalny’s exploitable death would be a conspicuous benefit, easily could have happened fortuitously.

Even Freud was obliged to admit that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

The psychopaths that Navalny foolishly agreed to serve probably got lucky. By dropping dead when he did Navalny performed his last and perhaps most valuable service to at least partially offset the huge investment they had made in him.

February 21, 2024 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

The U.S. Is Planning for the Aftermath of Ukraine War

By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 20, 2024

The prominent think tank for U.S. policymaking recently published a long report on the so-called aftermath of the war in Ukraine.

Washington and its NATO allies have to admit that the U.S. is losing another proxy war together with its satellite states of Europe. Previously they lost in Afghanistan (after more than 20 years, a second Vietnam), also recently in Syria and Iraq, and now in Ukraine.

Even so-called “Russia experts” in Europe admit that Ukraine is losing.

“I do not rule out that Ukraine will lose the war this year. Europe has misjudged the Russian army,” says Belgian “Russia expert” Joris van Blade to De Standaard.

Russia has the initiative again and the Russian people are not going to stop the war, he thinks. “We have missed historic opportunities to make Europe safer.”

According to the Rand study, two scenarios are possible: a so-called “hardline” or a “softline” postwar. Of course, the U.S. prefers a softline postwar outcome, where they still have room for manipulation and possible coup d’état and Balkanization (partition) of Russia just like they did in former Yugoslavia. According to Rand, the U.S. military presence in Europe has increased to around 100,000 personnel since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation in February 2022.

The United States deployed attack aviation from Germany to Lithuania; Patriot air defense systems from Germany to Slovakia and Poland; and F-15 tactical fighters from the United Kingdom to Poland. In addition, European countries are sending F-16s to Romania, as the Netherlands recently indicated. These F-16s are capable of attacking Russian cities. Washington characterized these deployments as part of a wartime surge to deter Russia from expanding its aggression beyond Ukraine to attack U.S. allies in Europe.

Leaders in Europe are almost hysterical. One after another, they proclaim that Russia is going to invade Europe, starting with Moldova, the Baltic States, and Poland. The Netherlands, Germany, and France are warning their people to expect an attack from Russia, as is Sweden, which recently joined NATO.

The population is being frightened by the unhinged rhetoric of their politicians. Conscription must be reactivated and Germany even has a concept ready to recruit migrants (about 1.5 million serviceable men) and entice them to get a passport.

European leaders are also concerned about the upcoming elections in the U.S. after Republican contender Donald Trump made comments suggesting he would quit NATO and let Europe fend for itself. They are worried that the U.S. might abandon them.

During a recent NATO conference in Brussels, a lot of war rhetoric was spoken. “We live in an era where we have to expect the unexpected,” said Dutch NATO Admiral Rob Bauer. Meanwhile, the Danish and German defense ministers have warned of a potential war with Russia within five years.

The U.S. and European leaders assume the “hardline” scenario is likely in the next few years. They proclaim through their mouthpieces in the corporate-controlled news media that Russia is becoming much more “risk-acceptant”. Therefore, it is calculated that a hardline approach may increase NATO’s ability to deter purported Russian aggression.

It’s that time of year again for the hawkish Munich Security Conference, in Bavaria, Germany. This is the forum where President Putin provoked alarm when he gave his famous speech in 2007, making it clear that the unipolar world was over and a multipolar world would emerge in the foreseeable future. Putin’s prognosis caused much chagrin for Western leaders.

This year’s theme at Munich is animated by Trump’s supposed undermining of NATO. The appeal for support from the U.S. has become more urgent among some European politicians. Ukraine lacks weapons and ammunition, they openly say. Russia is sometimes five times superior on the battlefield. In addition, a U.S. support package worth around $60 billion was approved by the Senate last week but the Republican-dominated House of Representatives could reject it – and so far it looks like it will.

Europe, in turn, would not be able to fill this gap and, therefore, Ukraine will lose the proxy war for the U.S. and the West.

In addition to the presence of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, the European leaders and lobbyists will also use the opportunity in Munich to lobby Republican Senators and Representatives to support Ukraine (with money). Nowhere outside the U.S. can you find as many American politicians in one place as at the Munich Security Conference this year.

Zelensky’s participation in the conference had been expected for some time but had not yet been officially confirmed.

Last year, he opened the most important meeting of Western politicians and experts on security policy via video address. Now he is taking part in person for the first time since the Russian Special Military Operation began almost two years ago. He is afraid for his position; he is losing the proxy war on behalf of the U.S. and EU/NATO.

The actor-President of Ukraine Zelensky desperately wants to secure future European support.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is attending the Munich conference instead of Joe Biden. Rumors are circulating in the Western media that Biden’s cognitive condition has deteriorated even more and he is unable to come. If Biden wins the November presidential election, will Harris become the next president upon his inevitable retirement during a second term? That’s probably the intention.

As President Putin said, he would rather have Biden than Trump as the winner. In his diplomatic way, he said that Biden is an “old school” politician, meaning of course that a Democratic government with Biden/Harris is easier to understand and estimate than Trump, who is capricious and unpredictable.

These are the facts: the presumed hegemony of the Western states is falling to pieces. The “Collective West” is losing its wars. Their status and economies are in a downward spiral, even before the Special Military Operation.

The politicians and the elites who stand behind them, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other semi-international organizations (usually Western-oriented) want to compensate for this historic loss of the unipolar world with a new system, away from fossil energy, ostensibly for the climate, but actually to try to weaken and isolate Russia by destroying its economy based on copious oil and gas resources.

European so-called leaders, in fact, “vassals” of the U.S., have slavishly followed the agenda of creating a new Cold War, which could turn into a hot war. Instead of betting on diplomacy, they have chosen the path of war, in contradiction to the (Western) UN Agenda 2030, where Western countries have forced this agenda on the Global South. This agenda also states that we must strive for peace and prosperity for everyone. So it is yet another lie from the Global West, or rather the empire of lies, which is now submerged in its own lies.

February 20, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »